Page 275«..1020..274275276277..280290..»

Category Archives: Stem Cells

UCLA Researchers Discover “Missing Link” Between Stem Cells and the Immune System

Posted: September 1, 2012 at 5:17 am

Newswise UCLA researchers have discovered a type of cell that is the missing link between bone marrow stem cells and all the cells of the human immune system, a finding that will lead to a greater understanding of how a healthy immune system is produced and how disease can lead to poor immune function.

The studies were done using human bone marrow, which contains all the stem cells that produce blood during postnatal life.

We felt it was especially important to do these studies using human bone marrow as most research into the development of the immune system has used mouse bone marrow, said study senior author Dr. Gay Crooks, co-director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and a co-director of the Cancer and Stem Cell Biology program at UCLAs Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. The few studies with human tissue have mostly used umbilical cord blood, which does not reflect the immune system of postnatal life.

The research team was intrigued to find this particular bone marrow cell because it opens up a lot of new possibilities in terms of understanding how human immunity is produced from stem cells throughout life, said Crooks, a professor of pathology and pediatrics.

Understanding the process of normal blood formation in human adults is a crucial step in shedding light on what goes wrong during the process that results in leukemias, or cancers of the blood.

The study appears Sept. 2 in the early online edition of Nature Immunology.

Before this study, researchers had a fairly good idea of how to find and study the blood stem cells of the bone marrow. The stem cells live forever, reproduce themselves and give rise to all the cells of the blood. In the process, the stem cells divide and produce intermediate stages of development called progenitors, which make various blood lineages like red blood cells or platelets. Crooks was most interested in the creation of the progenitors that form the entire immune system, which consists of many different cells called lymphocytes, each with a specialized function to fight infection.

Like the stem cells, the progenitor cells are also very rare, so before we can study them we needed to find the needle in the haystack. said Lisa Kohn, a member of the UCLA Medical Scientist Training Program and first author in the paper.

Previous work had found a fairly mature type of lymphocyte progenitor with a limited ability to differentiate, but the new work describes a more primitive type of progenitor primed to produce the entire immune system, Kohn said

Once the lymphoid primed progenitor had been identified, Crooks and her team studied how gene expression changed during the earliest stages of its production from stem cells.

Read this article:
UCLA Researchers Discover "Missing Link" Between Stem Cells and the Immune System

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on UCLA Researchers Discover “Missing Link” Between Stem Cells and the Immune System

‘Flip-flop’ switch discovered behind key cellular process

Posted: August 31, 2012 at 7:16 pm

The molecular circuitry controlling asymmetric cell division in roots resembles a flip-flop switch.

(Phys.org)For organisms to grow and develop, they must produce tissues with distinct functions, each one made up of similar cells. These different tissues are derived from stem cells. How stem cells divide to create new cell types is known as asymmetric cell division, and is obviously crucial to the overall development of the organism. In plants, whose cells cannot migrate, the location where a stem cell undergoes asymmetric cell division must also be crucial to ensuring tissues develop in the correct place.

In research published in the journal Cell, a collaboration between theoretical biologists and experimentalists, headed by Stan Mare of the John Innes Centre, and Ben Scheres, of the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands, uncovered a molecular switch that integrates signals to ensure these asymmetric cell divisions happen in the right place and at the right time, to produce layers of specialised tissue in the root.

"Through an experimental-modelling cycle, we have unravelled how stem cells in the Arabidopsis root regulate asymmetric cell divisions that give rise to two new cell identities at the correct position," said Dr Stan Mare of the John Innes Centre, which is strategically funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. "We dissected the underlying molecular circuit which operates in each cell, and found that it presented a highly robust bistable behaviour, due to two positive feedback loops involving the proteins SHR, SCR and the cell-cycle related players RBR and CYCLD6;1. In other words, we showed that the circuit behaves like a switch."

Bistable systems, which can only exist in one of two states, are found in nature where tight control is needed. Positive feedback loops are common features of them as they help make the rapid switch from one state to another.

Having identified this switch, the next step was to work out how the plant turns it on and off, so that only the correct stem cells perform asymmetric division, and in the right location for the overall development of the plant.

To do this, Dr Stan Mare together with Dr Vernica Grieneisen constructed a mathematical model, an in silico version of the root and the molecular circuitry behind the switch.

The physical location of an asymmetric cell division relies on the interaction of the plant hormone auxin and the protein SHR. Previous work by Dr Grieneisen had shown how auxin accumulates in the root tip through a reflux-loop mechanism established by polarly localized auxin efflux carriers in cells, and that the concentration of auxin declines the further from the root tip, forming a gradient with its highest peak at the stem cells.SHR protein sets up a similar gradient, but perpendicular to the auxin gradient, radiating out.

"We found that the cells that undergo these special cell divisions are located right at the crossroads of these two gradients," said Dr Grieneisen.

The cell divisions also trigger protein degradation, which turns the switch off again. This is needed to prevent uncontrolled development.

Read more:
'Flip-flop' switch discovered behind key cellular process

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on ‘Flip-flop’ switch discovered behind key cellular process

PropThink: STEM Gains on Anticipation of Interim Trial Data to be Presented Monday

Posted: August 31, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Stem Cells Inc, (STEM), developer of stem cell-based treatments for spinal injury, is up for the second day in a row Friday in pre-market trading, after it closed Thursday at $1.96, a 19% gain on the day. The gains came after the company announced that it will be presenting data from its Phase I/II clinical trial on Monday, Sept. 3 at the International Spinal Cord Society and will hold a conference call the following day. Trading volume Thursday was three times its 3-month average. The presentation will include interim data from the study`s first cohort, which has three partially paralyzed patients being treated with STEM`s proprietary HuCNS-SC cells. Researchers are looking for efficacy - measured by improvement in motor function, sensation, and bladder control - and safety in the first of three planned cohorts, each with more mild paralysis than the previous. Share price is likely to remain strong on Friday and into the meeting, as most analysts expect some positive results from the trial. If Monday`s data looks good for STEM, shares may climb higher on momentum, however, negative results will have disastrous effects on the stock. STEM is up 140% in 2012.

Click here to see this article at PropThink.com.

About PropThink

PropThink is an intelligence service that delivers long and short trading ideas to investors in the healthcare and life sciences sectors. Our focus is on identifying and analyzing technically-complicated companies and equities that are grossly over or under-valued. We offer daily market coverage, weekly feature stories, and a newsletter to investors who subscribe on PropThink.com. To learn more visit us at http://www.propthink.com.

The owner of this announcement warrants that: (i) the releases contained herein are protected by copyright and other applicable laws; and (ii) they are solely responsible for the content, accuracy and originality of the information contained therein.

Source: PropThink via Thomson Reuters ONE HUG#1637958

View original post here:
PropThink: STEM Gains on Anticipation of Interim Trial Data to be Presented Monday

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on PropThink: STEM Gains on Anticipation of Interim Trial Data to be Presented Monday

Verastem to Present at Upcoming Investor Conferences

Posted: August 30, 2012 at 5:13 pm

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Verastem, Inc., (VSTM) a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing drugs to treat breast and other cancers by targeting cancer stem cells, announced presentations at several upcoming investment conferences. The presentation details are as follows:

A webcast of each presentation can be accessed by visiting the investors section of the Companys website at http://www.verastem.com. A replay of the webcast will be archived on the Verastem website for two weeks following the presentation date.

About Verastem, Inc.

Verastem, Inc. (VSTM) is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing drugs to treat breast and other cancers by targeting cancer stem cells. Cancer stem cells are an underlying cause of tumor recurrence and metastasis. For more information please visit http://www.verastem.com.

Forward-looking statements:

Any statements in this press release about future expectations, plans and prospects for the Company constitute forward-looking statements.Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. The Company anticipates that subsequent events and developments will cause the Companys views to change.However, while the Company may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, the Company specifically disclaims any obligation to do so.

The rest is here:
Verastem to Present at Upcoming Investor Conferences

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on Verastem to Present at Upcoming Investor Conferences

Stem cells power implants

Posted: August 30, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Stem cell-powered implant set to revolutionise orthopaedic surgery

Scientists at the University of Glasgow are working to harness the regenerative power of stem cells to improve orthopaedic implant surgery. They are collaborating with surgeons at Glasgows Southern General Hospital to develop a new type of orthopaedic implant which could be considerably stronger and more long-lived than the current generation of products.

Currently, implants are commonly made from materials such as polyethylene, stainless steel, titanium or ceramic and have a limited lifespan due to loosening, requiring replacement after 15 or 20 years of use. In hip replacement surgery, the head of the thigh bone is removed and replaced with an implant which is held in place by a rod fixed inside the marrow along the length of the bone.

Marrow is a rich source of mesenchymal stem cells, which have the potential to divide, or differentiate, into other types of cells such as skin, muscle or bone which can improve the process of healing. However, stem cells can also differentiate into cells which have no use in therapy. Artificially controlling the final outcome to ensure the desired type of cells are created is very difficult, even under laboratory conditions.

When traditional implants are fixed into bone marrow, the marrows stem cells do not receive messages from the body to differentiate into bone cells, which would help create a stronger bond between the implant and the bone. Instead, they usually differentiate into a buildup of soft tissue which, combined with the natural loss of bone density which occurs as people age, can weaken the bond between the implant and the body.

The team from the University of Glasgows Colleges of Science and Engineering and Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences have found a reliable method to encourage bone cell growth around a new type of implant. The implant will be made of an advanced implantable polymer known as PEEK-OPTIMA, from Invibio Biomaterial Solutions, which is already commonly used in spinal and other orthopaedic procedures.

Dr Matthew Dalby, of the Universitys Institute of Molecular, Cell and Systems Biology, explained: Last year, we developed a plastic surface which allowed a level of control over stem cell differentiation which was previously impossible. The surface, created at the Universitys James Watt Nanofabrication Centre, is covered in tiny pits 120 nanometres across. When stem cells are placed onto the surface, they grow and spread across the pits in a way which ensures they differentiate into therapeutically useful cells.

By covering the PEEK implant in this surface, we can ensure that the mesenchymal stem cells differentiate into the bone cells. This will help the implant site repair itself much more effectively than has ever been possible before and could well mean that implants will last for the rest of patients life.

Dr Dalby added: People are living longer and longer lives nowadays; long enough, in fact, that were outliving the usefulness of some of our body parts. Our new implant could be the solution to the expensive and painful follow-up surgeries which conventional implants require.

Dr Nikolaj Gadegaard, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Engineering at the University, explained: One of the main selling points of PEEK is that it is very strong, has excellent stability and is very resistant to wear. However, the inertness of the material is not always suitable for implants that require some interaction with the surrounding tissue. Our nanopatterned surface may allow Invibios PEEK polymer to interact with stem cells and enable an effective integration between the implant and the body for the first time.

Continue reading here:
Stem cells power implants

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on Stem cells power implants

Positively Beautiful: Ever wondered about stem cells?

Posted: August 30, 2012 at 8:16 am

In past years, these nine little letters, stem cells, have caused much controversy and misunderstanding.

Stem cells are primitive, undifferentiated cells that are able to divide and become specialized cells of the body such as liver cells, muscle cells, blood cells and other cells with specific functions.

Because they have not yet committed to a developmental path that will form a specific tissue or organ, they are considered master cells with great potential. You may have wondered about what they are used for, and if they hold promise for helping you or a family member with serious disease or injury.

Stem cells are interesting and useful to doctors and scientists for several reasons:

Further work includes potential treatment for Type 1 diabetes, arthritis, stroke, Parkinsons disease, heart disease and Alzheimers disease.

There are also cosmetic applications, using the patients own cells for facial and body enhancement, such as the stem cell facelift, and topical skin applications.

The different types of stem cells include:

These come from embryos that are four to five days old, usually left over from fertility treatments and voluntarily donated.

These were thought to have the most potential for scientific use because they had minimal exposure to potential environmental toxins and great potential for use in tissue and organ regeneration. They are able to self-renew and are pluri-potent, meaning they become any type of cell in the future.

Embryonic cells are also the source of great controversy and debate, since many of us believe that life begins at conception and that manipulation of embryonic stem cells is unethical.

Continue reading here:
Positively Beautiful: Ever wondered about stem cells?

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on Positively Beautiful: Ever wondered about stem cells?

Medical Megatrends Stem Cells – Part III

Posted: August 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm

A cure for spinal cord injury? Diabetes? Macular degeneration? Hope or just hype? There are now some clinical trials using embryonic stem cells to treat serious diseases for which no other good therapy is currently available. But this is just the beginning of a major medical megatrend that will blossom forth in the coming years. Embryonic stem cells are present after a fertilized egg divides for two or three days. They have the seemingly miraculous ability to turn into any of the tissue types in the bodywhether brain neurons, beating heart cells, bone, or pancreatic islet cells. It is important to understand just where these cells come from. Those used in science are the byproduct of in vitro fertilization (IVF), cells taken from the often left over embryos that are otherwise discarded. In 1998, scientists under the leadership of Dr James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin, learned how to take some of the cells from these about to be discarded embryos and put them into a cell culture basically a fluid in which the cells can grow to produce more cells. These cells in turn can then be directed to grow into heart or lung or pancreas or other types of cells by the addition of various additives to the fluid in which they are growing. So it is from these discards that embryonic stem cells are available to us. Just to be clear. The blastocyst or embryo with its 32 or so cells is not grown in the culture dish. Rather, individual cells are removed and allowed to divide and grow. These are the so called embryonic stem cells. But no embryo is growing, just individual cells. It is true that much can be done with adult stem cells as discussed last time but science so far suggests that embryonic stem cells hold promise for much more benefit. It will probably be embryonic stem cells (or perhaps induced pluipotent stem cells see the first in this series) that pave the way for replacing the islet cells of the pancreas with new insulin producing cells to cure diabetes or replace the damaged cells in the brain that are key to Parkinsons disease. Some strongly feel that it is wrong to use cells from embryos. It is important to remember that these are fertilized eggs that were prepared for couples that could not conceive and so had eggs and sperm placed into a dish with special fluids. Experience has shown that success is better if the doctor implants a few embryos into the womans uterus rather than just one. But the doctor may have more than enough embryos and the extras will be discarded if the woman becomes pregnant. I look at it this way. Since the embryos will be destroyed anyway, why not use them for creating stem cells that perhaps many people with diverse diseases might benefit from. It is not dissimilar to transplanting the organs of a person who has died in a car accident rather than burying them in the grave. And the embryo, made up of just a few cells, is disrupted so each cell grows independently. Now the cells can be stimulated to become heart cells, liver cells or whatever and might be useful in treating a disease. It will take some years but there will certainly be major advances down the road in how we can repair, restore or replace damaged tissues or organs. The pace at which we benefit from stem cell therapy will be influenced by factors including cultural attitudes which in turn lead to legislative decisions and legal challanges. The issues revolving around federal funding via the NIH for research on embryonic stem cells reached the federal courts two summers ago and were further addressed by an appellate court in April of 2011. Cohen and Adashi, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine in May, 2011, gave a clear account of the debate in the courts. They concluded with It is difficult to overestimate the vast potential of stem-cell research. We believe we cannot afford to allow ongoing legal ambiguities to compromise this line of scientific pursuit. Quite the contrary, now is the time to pick up the pace with an eye toward realizing the hoped-for translational benefits. With statutory relief deemed unlikely to be provided before the 2012 elections, it appears all but inevitable that the matter of funding of human ESC research will have to be settled in a court of law. Of course that never happened and stem cell research is not high on the publics set of concerns for this years elections but the makeup of the coming Congress after the election could be relevant down the road. Here is an example of how stem cells could be used: islet cells on demand One day, and I believe it will occur within five to ten years, stem cells will be able to be mass grown into islet cells. They will be ready when the patient needs them. Just give them by vein and they will home into where they need to go. And if they are created from the process called nuclear transfer or adult cells reprogrammed from the patient by genes (iPSC) or proteins (piPSC) that I described previously, they probably will not be rejected because they will be developed to not provoke the immune system. But still, whatever process destroyed their own islet cells years before will probably still be functional. So these new cells may be destroyed over time as well, unless some new technology or drugs are developed to prevent this cell destruction by the body. But in the meantime, just come back for a new infusion whenever needed. Sort of like going to the gas station to refill the tank! Islet cells injected into the vein seem to know to go to the liver and live there and do their work. Bone marrow stem cells when injected by vein go to the bone marrow, take up residence and repopulate the marrow of the patient with leukemia who just got very aggressive treatments to eliminate all of his own marrow cells (and hopefully all of the leukemia cells as well.) But would all stem cells know where to go? Or what to do? Would they go to the heart after a heart attack or do they need to be infused directly into the coronary arteries or injected into the heart muscle itself? And stem cells or stem cells prompted to develop into brain cells will they need to be injected directly into those areas of the brain damaged by Parkinsons or Alzheimers diseases? These are but a few of the issues to be resolved with careful research. Here are just a few studies in progress, some in animals, some in humans and many in laboratory settings: iPS cells have been created for multiple different diseases by taking cells from affected patients such as diabetes type I, Lou Gehrigs disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Gauchers disease and muscular dystrophy. It is hoped that these cells will help explain the disease processes and their origination. In addition, they might prove useful in growing large numbers of mature cells that could in turn be used for drug screening and drug toxicity evaluations. And in this regard, iPSCs and piPSCs matured into cardiac cells are already being used by pharmaceutical companies to test new drugs for side effects. We all know that if we have a tooth pulled, thats it a tooth wont grow back. But an intriguing study has taken the cells of the progenitors of the molars from mouse embryos and grown them in culture for a few days. Meanwhile, a molar or two from multiple adult mice were extracted. Then the stem cells were implanted into that space and within two months the mice had new teeth with normal structure and strength, demonstrating that stem cells in the proper setting can lead to the re-growth of an organ or tissue. Think about the potential in humans to get a real new tooth rather than a prosthetic tooth or a bridge when a diseased or damaged tooth must be extracted. One of the most exciting studies to get underway was a phase 1 trial of stem cells in patients with spinal cord damage. The Geron Company began this FDA-approved trial in late 2010. They took human embryonic stem cells and from them derived oligodendrocyte progenitor cells; in other words, nerve cells. These were injected next to the spinal cord at the level of very recent injury. In extensive animal experiments, these cells were found able to cause the damaged spinal cord cells to remylinate (basically reapply an insulator as with the covering of an electric wire) and to create some type of nerve growth stimulation with remarkable restoration of some or all function. The rats began to move much more normally within just a week or so of the injection. Then came the human trial. It was Phase 1 meaning that it was all about studying if the injected cells would cause any toxicity. It is a good guess that they would not but because they were be used initially in low dosage (relative to what was used in the rats to obtain responses) so it is unlikely any functional improvement would occur. That would be the test in later trials (Phase 2 and 3) with higher cell numbers provided this Phase 1 study proceeded successfully. As it turned out, Geron Corporation ended the study after enrolling just four patients citing lack of adequate funding to continue. This left Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. as the only other American company conducting a study of embryonic stem cells for macular degeneration and for macular dystrophy in the eyes. They use embryonic stem cells to produce retinal epithelial pigment cells to be injected behind the retina in affected patients. Results will be forthcoming. Another very early Phase I study, this one using adult stem cells, is just beginning in Israel for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The patients own bone marrow stem cells will be treated in the laboratory with a proprietary process by BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics and then placed back into patients. So far 12 of 24 patients have been treated with no apparent adverse effects. The final results will be of real interest. As I said at the beginning, there is still much to be learned before stem cells will become routinely utilized for patient care but progress is real and the opportunities are exciting for a major transformation of medical care in the coming years. Here, as with genomics, we see the value and the importance of innovation. Scientists with good ideas taking the steps needed to bring new and until recently almost undreamed of possibilities to transform healthcare clearly a medical megatrend in the making.

Stephen C Schimpff, MD is an internist, professor of medicine and public policy, former CEO of the University of Maryland Medical Center and is chair of the advisory committee for Sanovas, Inc. and senior advisor to Sage Growth Partners. He is the author of The Future of Medicine Megatrends in Healthcare and The Future of Health Care Delivery- Why It Must Change and How It Will Affect You from which this post is partially adapted.

Go here to see the original:
Medical Megatrends Stem Cells – Part III

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on Medical Megatrends Stem Cells – Part III

An Unseemly Performance: Former Chair of Stem Cell Agency Promotes $20 Million Research Proposal

Posted: August 26, 2012 at 3:55 pm


Bob Klein is nearly an icon in the
history of the $3 billion California stem cell. And when he appeared
before its governing board last month and aggressively touted a $20
million grant proposal already rejected by agency reviewers, his
actions raised eyebrows.

Robert Klein
Elie Dolgin/Nature photo
Klein's comments carried unusual
weight, given that they were supported by his unique and influential
relationship with the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM)
. He and his associates wrote the 10,000-word ballot
initiative that created the stem cell agency in 2004. He ran the $35
million electoral campaign that convinced voters to buy into the
idea. Klein raised millions on behalf of the effort. He personally
provided the campaign $3 million. And he was the first chairman of
the agency, leaving that office only 13 months ago, when he was
designated chairman emeritus.
The meeting last month marked Klein's
first public appearance before the board on behalf of a specific
application.. He heralded the applicant, StemCells, Inc., as unique
and the “best” in United States with a “huge body of
experience.”

(The full text of his testimony can be found here.)
Irv Weissman
Stanford Photo
StemCells Inc. is a publicly traded company based in Newark, Ca., that was founded by renown Stanford
scientist Irv Weissman, who sits on its board. Weissman also played
an important role in the Prop. 71 ballot campaign that created the
stem cell agency. StemCells, Inc.'s application was turned down by
CIRM reviewers who gave it a score of 61, but the company appealed the action to the agency's governing board. Following the appearance by Klein, Weissman and others, the CIRM board sent the application back for more review.
The board will reconsider it next month or in October.
One California stem cell researcher,
who requested anonymity, said it is “highly inappropriate for Bob
Klein to be advocating for any grant application from a public
company.”
The scientist said,

 “He has
considerable influence with the ICOC(the CIRM governing board), and
is closely associated with biotech in the Bay Area. Even if he
doesn't make a lot of money himself from this, then he certainly has
friends who will.  Irv Weissman would be one of those friends."

In response to questions asked on Aug. 7 by the
California Stem Cell Report, Klein today defended his actions.  He was asked if he had “any sort of
financial ties” to firms or individuals that would benefit from
approval of the award. Klein, who is a real estate investment banker and also an attorney, said he has
“no financial interest” in the firm or individuals that might
benefit.
Klein also indicated his appearance was
entirely appropriate. He defined his role as a patient advocate –
not as a lobbyist who is paid for advocating on behalf of a company.
Klein said he had “a particular responsibility to contribute my
background knowledge and experience.”
Klein said he hoped other former board
members would follow his example. He said,

“(I)t would be a tragedy if the
expertise of board members built up over six or more years is lost.”

(The full text of his response can be found here.)
Klein's appearance came at a propitious
time for financially strapped StemCells, Inc. The company's
financial information shows that it is losing $5.4 million a quarter
as of the end of June and had only $9 million in cash on hand. It
also had liabilities of $11.6 million, up substantially from $8.5
million in September of last year.
The researcher who criticized Klein's efforts as inappropriate also said,

"StemCells Inc has been on the
stock market for 20 years, without producing anything of value for
the investors.  The stock price has been sinking fast:  it
was 60 cents this June; last year at this time, it was around $5 a
share.   

“On July 17, when the CIRM Disease
Team Award review results became available, the stock rose from 87
cents to $1.80 – a person who could anticipate the outcome of the
CIRM applications could have made considerable money in that 24 hour
period.”

Weissman's role
with the StemCells, Inc., is more than scientific. According to the
company's financial statements, he holds 88,612 shares. His wife,
Ann Tsukamoto
, is executive vice president of the firm. She holds
185,209 shares in the firm.
Weissman played a significant role in
the Prop. 71 campaign. He did the “billionaire circuit,” raising
money for the initiative, according to an article by Diana Kapp in
San Francisco magazine. Among other things, Weissman worked the
exclusive Bohemian Grove in Northern California and “pitched”
Bill Bowes, a co-founder of Amgen, who, along with his wife, gave
$1.3 million to the campaign. Weissman was the key to securing a
$400,000 contribution from Microsoft's Bill Gates. Weissman also plumped for Prop. 71 in a TV campaign ad.
In addition to StemCells, Inc., Klein
and Weissman supported a successful attempt last month to overturn
reviewers' rejection of another $20 million application by Judith Shizuru
of Stanford. The application received a score of 53 from reviewers.
One of the application's problems cited
by reviewers was the availability of antibodies for the study. The
antibodies were developed by Systemix, a company founded by Weissman.
Systemix was acquired by Novartis in 1997 for about $70 million.
Weissman said he has “negotiated back” rights to key antibodies,
which he said are now held by Stanford.
Klein said that reviewers believed the
research was “a showstopper” but did not think the documentation
was adequate. He told the CIRM directors that they now have a letter
with proprietary information that supports the grant application.
Our take: The stem cell agency has long
labored under the perception that it is something of an insiders'
club. Even the prestigious journal Nature warned in 2008 about what
it called “cronyism” at CIRM. If anything, the situation is worse today,  four years later. Enterprises associated with persons on the CIRM board of directors have received more than 90 percent of the funds handed out by the agency. Klein's efforts last month
reinforce the not-so-pleasant image of the stem cell agency as an
old boy's club and create an impression – at the very least – of
unseemly insider influence.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on An Unseemly Performance: Former Chair of Stem Cell Agency Promotes $20 Million Research Proposal

CIRM Board Member Prieto Defends Klein’s Right to Appear Before Board

Posted: August 26, 2012 at 3:55 pm


A member of the governing board of the
California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has commented
in an email about the “unseemly performance” item concerning the
agency's former chairman, Robert Klein. Prieto is a
Sacramento physician who serves as a patient advocate member of the
board. He has been on the board since its inception. Here are his
remarks.

“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate.  While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board.  He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers.  As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but  he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on CIRM Board Member Prieto Defends Klein’s Right to Appear Before Board

Text of Klein’s Response to Questions Concerning His Advocacy on Rejected Grant Applications

Posted: August 26, 2012 at 3:55 pm


Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.

"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine
, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries. 

"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company.

"Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries. 

"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision. 

"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence. 

"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future. 

"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review. 

"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public. 

"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area. 

"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.

"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Text of Klein’s Response to Questions Concerning His Advocacy on Rejected Grant Applications

Page 275«..1020..274275276277..280290..»